Horror Stories from Stanford Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program

"By endorsing an anti-Semitic narrative that designates Jews collectively as 'oppressors,' responsible for systemic racism, while simultaneously denying Jewish ancestral identity, the DEI program fosters anti-Jewish sentiment and encourages hostility toward Jews."

|

My protest at CUNY Law was a formative experience. I saw, with my own eyes, a woke mob. I learned quite a bit. One of the more jarring experiences was being called a white supremacist and a Nazi. My grandparents, who were both Holocaust survivors, could never have fathomed their grandson would be called a Nazi. One of the students engaged me, and explained that as a Jewish person, I was both an "oppressor" (because of my white privilege) and I was "oppressed" (because I was Jewish). This sort of dichotomy is textbook CRT. Everyone must be separated based on their level of victimhood. Those at the top of the oppression pyramid can dictate the terms of engagement for those at the bottom of the pyramid. I was inserted somewhere in the middle of that pyramid, but still, my role was constrained.

I provide this personal anecdote as an introduction to a recent incident at Stanford. The University mandates Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training. And, like the woke mob at CUNY, the Stanford DEI policy separates people based on their level of oppression. Jewish employees were lumped in together in the "whiteness accountability" affinity group, and deemed oppressors.

The Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed an EEOC complaint. Here is an excerpt:

Through its DEI committee, weekly seminars and racially segregated affinity groups, the CAPS DEI program has maligned and marginalized Jews on the basis of religion, race and ethnic identity by castigating Jews as white, powerful and privileged members of society who contribute to systemic racism and denying and attempting to erase Jewish ancestral identity. In addition, the DEI program has denigrated the concept of Jewish victimhood and deliberately excluded anti-Semitism from the program's agenda. Ronald Albucher (Dr. Albucher) and Sheila Levin (Ms. Levin) are two Jewish employees of Stanford University (Stanford) who have worked as mental health clinicians in CAPS throughout the timeframe described in this complaint and have been subjected to an ongoing hostile environment in the CAPS DEI program on the basis of their national origin, religion and race.

The CAPS DEI program engages in intentional racial segregation through race-based affinity groups. It relies upon racial and ethnic stereotyping and scapegoating by describing all Jews as white or white-passing and therefore complicit in anti-Black racism. Jewish staff have been pressured to attend the DEI program's racially segregated "whiteness accountability" affinity group, which was created for "staff who hold privilege via white identity" and "who are white identified, may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white presenting or passing (aka seen as white by others even though you hold other identities)." The DEI committee has also endorsed the narrative that Jews are connected to white supremacy, advancing anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy, and control. By endorsing an anti-Semitic narrative that designates Jews collectively as "oppressors" and responsible for systematic racism, while simultaneously denying the uniqueness of Jewish ancestral identity, the DEI committee fosters anti-Jewish sentiment and encourages hostility toward Jews.

Insider Higher Education has more details:

One of those incidents occurred on May 16, 2020, when Zoombombers disrupted a virtual Stanford town hall by displaying pictures of swastikas and weapons and using the N-word. During a CAPS DEI seminar four days later, "DEI committee members addressed the racist and anti-Black content but did not mention anti-Semitism or the anti-Semitic images of swastikas that were displayed during the Zoombombing attack," according to Albucher's complaint.

When Albucher inquired about the omission, a DEI committee member—whose name is redacted in the version of the complaint publicly released—allegedly "stated, in sum and substance, that the DEI committee decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism."

"When Dr. Albucher further expressed his concern about the decision to ignore the issue of anti-Semitism, DEI committee member [name redacted] and others accused Dr. Albucher of trying to derail the agenda's focus on anti-Black racism," his complaint alleges. "DEI committee members justified the omission of anti-Semitism by insisting that unlike other minority groups, Jews can hide behind their white identity."

Because Jews are oppressors, their oppression should be ignored. This sort of claptrap is conventional thinking on academic campuses. These DEI professionals are no different than the CUNY students who shouted me down.

When a school adopts "Anti-Racist" DEI training, faculty and students should expect this sort of treatment. It is baked into the ideology. Mandating this sort of segregated activity would run afoul of academic freedom. I refuse to acknowledge the validity of these tactics. Indeed, they run afoul of state and federal law. If forced, I would refuse to participate.

The ABA is currently considering whether to mandate this sort of training. These mandates would radically alter the way legal education is provided.  Most lawyers, alas, are too afraid of being called racist to object. I'm not. The woke mob called me a Nazi and I survived. I didn't file a disciplinary complaint. I didn't sue them for defamation. I ignored them, because they are not worth taking seriously. Tenure is helpful. But untenured faculty may not be so bold. And students are stuck.

NEXT: Academic Freedom and the Critical Race Theory Legislation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But hey, you know, state legislatures that fund colleges shouldn’t get involved in preventing this sort of thing (at least in the classroom), according to Whittington and his post that came out just before this.

    1. My federal judge was the daughter of 2 Holocaust survivors. I wrote to her about the sole German judge who stood up to the Nazis. She still ruled with the Democrat lockdown. She thus killed millions around the world. Those included millions in the native law of Girbir Grewal, the AG that defended the lockdown of New Jersey.

      This is the sole judge that stood for German law. A copy of the warrant for murder issued on a Nazi governor is in his autobiography in German. His name should be better known by the American lawyer profession.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Kreyssig

      A lawyer will be destroyed for intermingling funds or for being tipsy in court. However, mass murder does not violate the NJ Rules of Conduct. I did not want to file a frivolous allegation, and there was no recourse. Forget the millions of poor who died from this lockdown. NJ had the highest rate of nursing home deaths in the country. The Dempcrat Governor allowed infected asymptomatic young people to travel to provide intimate care to vulnerable nursing home patients, and killed thousands. NJ Medicaid did run a surplus in 2020. The cheapest patient is the dead patient.

      1. What do you mean by “my federal judge”? A judge you know, a judge who sentenced you, a judge in a case you had, etc. etc.?

        I’ve said from the beginning of this COVID crap, that we should have stayed open, like Sweden.

        1. The judge that dismissed my injunction to end the lockdown rules of New Jersey.

          1. “Tenure is helpful. But untenured faculty may not be so bold. And students are stuck.”

            When you get fired from the law school faculty for political correctness, you find a job at twice the salary and with half the stress.

            1. Courts are cowardly, and will rarely, if ever, offer an opinion that is not somewhere within the Overton Window. This is true, even if, like federal judges, they are separate from electoral politics by virtue of them not being up for election.

              Why, on God’s green earth, would you ever think a federal judge would stand brave and firm and end a state’s lockdown? Yes, yes, you can point to an exception here for there, but the exception proves the general rule.

              1. To obey the laws of New Jersey? To obey the constitution? Because the lockdown lacked the scintilla of rationality required in prior Supreme Court decisions?

                Instead, the judge acted like a partisan Democrat. She also went after my standing, instead of addressing substance. I had spent a lot of words on standing, anyway, and amended the complaint, knowing what would happen. She just ignored them.

            2. Actually, what is far more likely is for a student to totally snap and come back with firearms.

              There is a LOT that hasn’t been told about Virginia Tech, including how VT harassed the perp. Personally, I think that VT *caused* the tragedy, and I’m not the only one who thinks that….

              1. VT caused the tragedy by its political correctness. Doctor, I can discuss the Governor’s Commission report. Shocking. The most shocking of all the missed opportunities to prevent dozens of pointless murders? The mental health clinic would still have disobeyed the judge’s order for involuntary treatment. That was a year later, and after no one was suing anyone. Why? They believed, the patient is in charge of his treatment team. In the case of paranoid schizophrenia, that leftist belief is more delusional than the perp’s recordings on YouTube, “You made me do this.” He was speaking to the ducks in the pond, getting together with the students to come after him. Those VT doctors are sicker than he was, and refused to learn.

                1. No — and it was not a random shooting. He had a list, witnesses said he was looking for specific people initially, and I’m convinced he was targeting the campus appeals board.

                  The “you wouldn’t just let me go” involved him not being permitted to graduate because of some feminazi re-education stuff they had decided to impose on him, and while that’s not grounds to kill people, it’s what took a merely disturbed student and pushed him over the edge.

                  Involuntary treatment DOES NOT WORK and all it really does is make someone who is dangerous even *more* dangerous when he is released a few days later…

                  Get V/T to release his discipline file — FERPA expires with the student’s death and hence they could if they wanted to — and at least one media outfit was suing them for not doing so.

                  1. It worked for him in high school, when parents supervised him. The university refused to call his parents, despite the medical necessity of helping him. Again, PC killed all those people and him. You should watch the video he recorded between the killings in the dorm and those in the classes. That is still on YouTube.

                    1. The lawyer profession took over psychiatry in 1976. Since that time, as with everything the lawyer touches, suicides, murders and overdoses have soared. Prior to 1976, 2 physicians certified a mental illness, and medically necessary treatment was imposed. After 1976, 3 lawyers had to be hired, one to prosecute, one to defend, one to run a full blown trial. OK, now we have people shoved onto the subway tracks. Good job, lawyers.

                  2. No — and it was not a random shooting. He had a list, witnesses said he was looking for specific people initially, and I’m convinced he was targeting the campus appeals board.

                    Every word of this is made up. Every. Single. Word.

              2. There is a LOT that hasn’t been told about Virginia Tech,

                Then how would you know it?

                Personally, I think that VT *caused* the tragedy, and I’m not the only one who thinks that….

                There are many people who believe delusional things.

          2. He’s not kidding, folks. He did file a 100% frivolous lawsuit.

            He did try to call the judge a Nazi. And he did make up frivolous non-facts about deaths from lockdowns, supported with nothing but his own raving looniness.

            1. Hi, David. Your comment is irresponsible.

              The figures were cited from the UN World Food Programme. The other deaths came from an effect discovered in 1887 and confirmed many times. My point was validated by NJ’s experiencung the highest rate of nursing home deaths jn the country. This judge was told. She had knowledge. She is one of the biggest mass murderers in history, far worse than the Nazi judges in body count.

              Did you know mass murder by a judge does violate the NJ Rules of Conduct? I do not file frivolous claims.

              1. Mass murder does not violate the NJ Rules of Conduct.

                Sorry.

      2. Behar,
        ” She thus killed millions around the world. ”
        Your post is so offensive that I don’t have to read a single word more that you write.
        Bye.

        1. The lockdown, not the virus, dropped the world GDP by $4 trillion. That caused 100 million starvation deaths. This judge killed more people, more quickly, than the 20th Century tyrants. Daughter of 2 Holocaust survivors, not ironic to you?

          The tech billionaires of the US got enriched by $1.7 trillion, by the lockdown. Those of China got enriched by $2 trillion. They own the media that stoked the COVID hysteria.

          I hate how they are 100 times smarter than I am. I want to seize their assets in civil forfeiture for the billions of federal internet crimes committed on their platofrms, with millions committed by them directly.

  2. “DEI program has denigrated the concept of Jewish victimhood and deliberately excluded anti-Semitism from the program’s agenda.”

    Concern about anti-Semitism was useful while Trump was in office, but it’s no longer useful.

    They are sticking with the Trump caused anti-asian attacks a little longer, mainly to try to associate the lab-leak theory to racism. But since the lab-leak theory has now been pretty much proven, I think continued efforts to blame Trump will stop because it will just remind people he was right about the lab leak.

    1. “But since the lab-leak theory has now been pretty much proven”

      Boy, pretty much has rarely done so much work!

      1. You need to update your software. Lab leak theory is now the default narrative. Even John Steward is saying it’s stupid to say otherwise and making fun of those who don’t believe it. Hurry up on that narrative download to get your fish.

        1. John Steward (sic), well that solves that lol!

          1. The “furin like” cleavage point on Covid 19, which is what makes it so infectious, was created after a double Arginine (two ARginine’s in a row) was somehow inserted into the coronavirus genome (no, “inserted” here does not require human action.)

            There’s lots of ways for sequences to get inserted into viral genomes. The problem is that THIS insert is CGGCGG. That’s a sequence that’s not found in any of the sequenced genomes of coronavirus’es that are close to Covid 19

            It IS the sequence that human labs use to insert a double Arginine. There are 6 ways to get Arginine, so there’s 36 possible DNA sequences that could code for it. At best 3% likelihood if not by human activity, near 100% likelihood if by human intervention.

            That’s a strong argument for human intervention.

            The fact that the Chinese keep lying about things, and refuse to allow any sort of honest investigation into the situation, is another strong argument for “human created”.

            So if you’re claiming that “natural event” is the more likely option, you’re at best engaged in strongly motivated “reasoning”, and more likely lying or writing from a place of total ignorance.

            Which is it?

            1. Neither of us know enough to make a conclusion on this, the difference between us is I know that and do not offer one and only question yours. From everything I’ve read from people that can claim to know enough the origin of COVID is unknown.

              1. Wrong.

                I just detailed why we know it.

                If you’re such a science ignoramus that you can’t understand what i wrote, then YOU don’t know enough to make a conclusion.

                I do. Because I do understand the situation, and the science.

                What I also understand is that you don’t want to come to the conclusion that Covid came out of a Chinese Communist Party lab, and that the work that created it was quite probably funded by the US, because Dr Fauci approved a waiver on the “no gain of research funding” rule for the research.

                Neither your ignorance, nor your dishonest pursuit of your political goals, binds me or my ability to understand things

                1. “I just detailed why we know it.”

                  No, you didn’t. You offered a sciency-sounding explanation which I’m betting you’re not qualified to judge the merits of and a pretty sad circumstantial argument (your putting so much weight on that alone discredits you). You literally don’t know what you’re talking about and yet offering conclusions on it.

                  1. Since you don’t understand it, you’re betting the author doesn’t either.

                    Since no one here understands you, it’s a pretty safe bet you don’t understand yourself either.

                    Is that how the logic works?

                  2. “No, you didn’t. You offered a sciency-sounding explanation which I’m betting you’re not qualified to judge the merits of”

                    How much are you betting? Whatever it is, you lose.

                    I read the WSJ article on why “made in a lab” was the most likely option, then hunted down the papers referenced, read and understood them, and came to agree with their assessment.

                    “Leftists always project”. So what you’re saying here is that when YOU claim to understand something, you’re lying.

                    I’m not so limited. Because I had an actual education, not just indoctrination

                  3. A life lesson:

                    When you don’t understand something, there’s 3 things you can do about it:
                    1: Don’t care about it, and STFU about it. This is what I did about the lab leak hypothesis until a week or so ago
                    2: Learn enough until you can understand it. The WSJ article about the reasons why the lab leak hypothesis is the most reasonable hypothesis discussed science I didn’t understand, tied that in to science I did understand, and then tied that in to more science I did understand.

                    One major heuristic for “this is garbage” is “the parts I don’t understand look cool, but the parts I do understand look off.” In the WSJ article’s case, all the parts I did understand looked correct. So I decided to treat it as worthy of study

                    I went out and did some research to figure out the part I didn’t understand (why a “furin like” cleavage site matters). Then I looked up the early articles on the DNA sequence of Sars-Cov-2, and comparisons of it to other Coronavirus sequences.

                    And then I decided that the WSJ article was correct, and that the most reasonable hypothesis is that Sars-Cov-2 was made in a Chinese lab.

                    So, that’s option 2: get educated, THEN make a decision

                    3: Be a mindless buffoon and let other people tell you what to think, then go out and parrot their orders.

                    That’s what you’re doing, and that’s what I try to never do

              2. Wow, what a backtrack and pettifogging hedge of your initial scoffing of the lab leak idea to some sort of “well, we just don’t know enough yet.”

                1. “initial scoffing of the lab leak idea ”

                  Wrong, I scoffed at the idea that the lab leak idea has ‘pretty much been proven true.’

              3. “From everything I’ve read from people that can claim to know enough the origin of COVID is unknown.”

                Really? Who are these people? Where are they making those claims, and have the directly addressed the double Arginine and the furin like cleavage site?

                Or did they just wave their hands in the air and say “we can never know”?

                1. “Who are these people?”

                  People, unlike yourself, recognized as experts in the relevant fields based on their education, training, experience and accomplishments.

                  “have the directly addressed the double Arginine and the furin like cleavage site?”

                  As a matter of inductive logic I can conclude they know more about what this is and what it means than you do or could and yet they have not concluded the lab leak theory is ‘pretty much proven.’

                  But of course, they didn’t take the so solid conclusive evidence of ‘China is being evasive about the whole thing’ as convincing so there’s that…

                  1. On the one hand, we have a lot of actual scientists saying that the CGG-CGG sequence is a strong indicator of artificial pressure on, or human modification of, the virome.

                    On the other hand, we have people organized by Peter Daszak denying that a lab leak could have happened, and even denying that WIV kept bats. And we have a boatload of evidence that WIV kept bats, so we know about how much we can trust them on easy-to-check facts.

                    You might want to send your inductive logic in for a tune-up.

                    1. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    2. QA, just because you don’t understand what I am talking about, or even what you are talking about, it does not follow that I share your ignorance.

                      Stop acting like such a prat, assuming you can control your behavior.

                    3. Michael, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is as of yet no accepted affirmative evidence of a lab leak.

                    4. There is as of yet no accepted affirmative evidence of a natural origin, either. But there is conclusive evidence of weasel wording and attempted gaslighting.

                    5. “There is as of yet no accepted affirmative evidence of a lab leak.”

                      “Accepted” by who? The people who have a partisan or personal interest in denying the lab leak?

                      Define “affirmative evidence” and tell us how we could find it.

                      Then tell us why “affirmative evidence” is required. We convict people of crimes based on circumstantial evidence all the time. And unless you’re willing to claim that “any murderer who manages to destroy the body, and isn’t caught on tape, must get away with it” then it’s right and proper that we are willing to come to such conclusions using circumstantial evidence.

                      So, tell us why your claim has meaning

                    6. Here’s what we know:

                      1: Viruses need cell and species directed cleavage sites in their spike proteins in order to infect cells
                      2: Having a cleavage site that can be targeted by multiple proteins found in multiple different cell types gives a virus more targets, making it more infectious
                      3: Sars-Cov-2 has a nicely accessible cleavage site, targetible by multiple different human cell types surface proteins
                      4: The DNA sequence of this cleavage site is not found in any naturally known coronavirus species related to Sar-Cov-2
                      5: The cleavage site sequence looks like the exact kind of thing that researchers splice into a virus that they’re playing with
                      6: In particular, the DNA/RNA coding for the double Arginine (key to making it infectious in humans), CGGCGG, is the exact sequence human researchers use when adding a furin-like cleavage site.
                      7: There are 6 different 3 letter codes for Arginine. Which means there’s 36 different ways to get double Arginine. Which means that, by chance, there’s a less than 3% chance of getting CGGCGG

                      Sars-Cov-2 became massively infectious to humans because it picked up a protein coding sequence that doesn’t exist in any of the known viruses it would have muted from, would show up in less than 3% of the cases where it came about by natural mutation, but would show up in close to 100% of the cases where humans manipulated the genome to add double Arginine.

                      Is it “absolutely proved”? No, it isn’t.
                      Is it “far more likely than the hypothesis of natural origin”?

                      Yes, it is.

                      Are we at the point where “if no more evidence of any sort came out, would you believe the lab lack claims?” is the correct belief?

                      Yes, we are

                  2. How could YOU recognize them as experts, since you have admitted you don’t understand them?

                    Logic and consistency seem to not be your friends.

                    1. Queenie is in denial about the most obvious facts of his life, the chromosomal genotype of every cell of his body. Do not expect much for more controversial subjects.

                  3. Me: Who are these people?

                    Queenie: People, unlike yourself, recognized as experts in the relevant fields based on their education, training, experience and accomplishments.

                    IOW, Queenie can’t name a single one of these “experts”. Because if she did, we’d point out that the “expert” is a lying hack on China’s payroll, or one of the people who ot WIV funded to do the Gain of Function research that probably led to Covid-19

                    No names, no links, because it’s all bullshit

          2. No fish for you.

          3. Yes, he cites as many references as you do.

        2. The lab leak is a tale that avoids the fundamental question: what is the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
          Is it natural? or was the virus the product of human bioengineering?

          1. That’s a strawman argument.

            If Covid leaked from the lab as a “natural” disease that just happened to pass from the multiple bats likely being housed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or if it was improved upon by humans and THEN leaked from the lab is not relevant to the question of whether it leaked from the lab in the first place.

            The most likely answer is yes, it did leak from one of the two virology labs in Wuhan.

            1. What do you mean “stawman argument.” It is simple logic of possibilities with an excluded middle.to produce it.
              If you have evidence of deliberate Chines criminal action in violation of bio-warfare agreements, I challenge you to produce it here and now.

            2. “The most likely answer is yes, it did leak from one of the two virology labs in Wuhan.”
              In other words, you are ducking the relevant question that China must answer to the other governments on this planet.

          2. SARS-CoV-2 started out as a bat coronavirus

            Researchers at the WIV, using US dollars sent to them because Fauci gave them a waiver from a ban on Gain of Function research, inserted into that coronavirus’s spike protein a multi=target cleavage site, making it a virus that can infect many different types of human cells.

            Then they put it through a significant amount of “Gain of Function” “forced evolution”, and kept going until they had a highly infectious version.

            Then, apparently, the idiots let it leak, and infected a bunch of their own family members. Which is, at least, the best argument for “not a deliberate leak”.

            Any other questions?

            1. At least Greg, you’re honest and make the clear claim of criminal Chinese behavior

              1. The Chinese repeatedly lied about human to human transmission of Covid

                The Chinese in Wuhan violated Chinese gov’t rules about reporting infection outbreaks

                So far as I know, the WIV’s Gain of Function research violated no US laws. The US shouldn’t have been funding it, but Fauci issued a waiver “in the national security interest” and so they were funded.

                The issue here is that Fauci appears to be personally and directly responsible for Sars-Cov-2 (via the waiver he signed), and attempted to abuse the public trust and his position to hide that fact

      2. Boy, pretty much has rarely done so much work!

        Other than when you fancy you’ve pretty much pulled your head out of the sand….

        1. Let’s give this comment of Brian the response it deserves: I know you are, but what am I?

          1. Brian is a schmuck. We all know that.

            1. Wow, it’s like gossipy little girls in high school. Maybe middle school.

        1. “If a picture showing the Chief bat virologist at the Wuhan lab treating a bat as an pet in a completely unsecured manner in the Wuhan lab doesn’t pretty much prove the lab leak theory, I don’t know what does ”

          Holy shit, you actually think this, don’t you? You do realize this is textbook definition of circumstantial evidence, right?

          1. “You do realize this is textbook definition of circumstantial evidence, right?”

            So?

            1. Few scientists I know tell me ‘I have a single piece of circumstantial evidence so the theory is pretty much proven!’ but maybe you hang out with a different set.

              1. How could you trust what they say, since you admit you don’t understand them?

          2. Well if you walk into a room after hearing a gun shot, and see a body on the floor, and someone with a gun in their hand, that is circumstantial evidence. It can be refuted of course, but of itself it can certainly be considered by a jury as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Refute away.

          3. We know they were studying coronavirus in bats. We know they had incredibly lax safety procedures to the point of nonexistence. Natural occurrences of similar viruses are nearly 1000 miles away. To say it’s proven is not accurate. However, I think these points alone would meet the preponderance of evidence standard. The genome facts weight it even more heavily. We are close to or beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

            1. Yea ignore all of that because Trump said it is possible the virus came from the lab. That’s how all of the smart people evaluate things. Based on who said it not what is said.

        2. Kaz, this is really freaking dumb.
          You know that’s not probative; I know you’re smart enough to realize that. But here you are.

          1. I’ll tell you what is dumb, ignoring incontrovertible facts:

            Dr. Shi Zhengli was a coronavirus researcher in the Wuhan lab.

            She isolated the SARS-Covid-1 virus in 2017 from a bat population 1000km away from Wuhan.

            She studied the virus in the Wuhan lab.

            She kept bats in an unsafe and haphazard manner in the Wuhan lab. See the picture I linked to above if you dispute that.

            2 years after she isolated the virus, and had been “studying” it at the lab, it first shows up in people and capable of human to human transmission within a very short distance of the lab.

            From Time Magazines profile September last year:
            “In January, Shi Zhengli led one of the first scientific teams that isolated SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that went on to ravage the world. The virus was new to science, but Shi could see where it had come from: bats. Sixteen years of virus hunting had prepared her for that epiphany.

            In 2003, another corona-virus unleashed the SARS epidemic. To find its origin, Shi and her colleagues traveled to caves in southwestern China. There, they found bats infected with SARS-like viruses. Over the subsequent years, Shi—a virologist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gone spelunking into more caves and found many more bat coronaviruses. In 2015, Shi and her colleagues warned that it was just a matter of time before another bat coronavirus spilled over the species barrier and wreaked havoc. Five years later, SARS-CoV-2 proved her right.”

            After reading that, go back and look at that bat picture again, and tell me that is not smoking gun level evidence.

            1. It’s not smoking gun level evidence.

              We don’t even know if it was a CoV-related bat.

    2. Jews need to think more carefully about whom they consider friends — YES there would not have been a civil rights movement without the active support of the Jews, but don’t think that will be remembered…

      1. The gun is the only friend of the Jew.

      2. Another pointless mumble from MrEd

    3. It hasn’t been proven but at least you can bring it up now without being called a conspiracy cuckoo by the MSM. It was only conspiracy craziness because Trump was president and there was fear (probably misguided) that admitting it was possible would help his re-election. Not the case anymore so now we can admit it’s a viable possibility.

      1. I don’t think you need to get partisan about it; it was conspiratorial craziness when the zoonotic hypothesis was more likely. As science has continued to progress in the area, the probability of a zoonotic origin has gone down, so alternatives become more likely.

        Science, not media partisanship.

        1. it was conspiratorial craziness when the zoonotic hypothesis was more likely.

          More likely? I think you mean more desperately needed to be true. None of the relevant facts have changed one iota — just the inclination of an increasing number of peoples to consider those facts when assessing probability instead of squeezing their eyes shut and playing “what if” in a vacuum.

          1. Facts may not change, while the science does. That’s how science works.

  3. “This sort of dichotomy is textbook CRT. Everyone must be separated based on their level of victimhood.”

    “the DEI program has denigrated the concept of Jewish victimhood ”

    You cannot make this stuff up folks.

    1. Hell *is* truly frozen over, in that I agree with you again, to the extent that I don’t think there is much victimhood going on with 21st Century Jews.

    2. Are you saying it’s correct?

      1. Do you not see any tension between those statements?

        1. Seeing as on comes from Blackman (who is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong) , and the other form the official complaint, no I don’t see it.
          What tension do you see?

        2. Do you see any tension between Blackman’s first statement and a hypothetical statement that “the DEI program has denigrated the concept of straight white male victimhood”?

          If the program stresses that victimhood is important, presumably they also stress that only *legitimate* victimhood is important. They would do this by denigrating the kind of victimhood claims that they think are illegitimate.

    3. “You cannot make this stuff up folks.”

      You think everybody except Jews should be separated based on their level of victimhood?

      You’re OK with Stanford claiming that Jews are oppressors?

    4. One of the complaints was that there was an an incident where neo-Nazis took over a Zoom meeting and bombarded it with Klan and Nazi propaganda. The organizers let the black people talk about how the anti-black symbols made them feel, but they wouldn’t let the Jewish people talk about how the anti-semetic symbols made them feel.

      The complaint about this was expressed in faux-woke jargon, and you rightly satirize how if comes out sounding. But I think that it was a legitimate complaint all the same. Black people’s feelings were respected, while Jews’ attempts to express their feelings’ were actively shut down. I think the Jews have a legitimate argument that shutting down their attempts to talk about the antisemetic aspects of the incident, and only letting the black people talk about the anti-black aspects, made them feel excluded from this “diversity and inclusion” workshop, and communicated that their feelings and problems were to be denigrated.

      1. “and you rightly satirize how if comes out sounding”

        You might want to explain this to 12 inch above…

        1. You were merely satirizing the way a legitimate complaint came out sounding? OK, then. I guess I misunderstood your comment.

          1. I was satirizing Blackman’s take.

      2. Is there any proof that it actually *was* nazis — and not yet another made-up hate crime???

  4. Jewish staff have been pressured to attend the DEI program’s racially segregated “whiteness accountability” affinity group, which was created for “staff who hold privilege via white identity” and “who are white identified, may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white presenting or passing (aka seen as white by others even though you hold other identities).”

    CRT is so totally misunderstood, yo? Just some warm, fuzzy ideas people want to explore in the classroom that are going to make the world a better place for all….

    1. Do you think Brian regularly takes EEOC complaints as gospel?

      1. Which parts of the complaint do you think are incorrect, Queenie, and why? Please be specific.

    2. What does the described behavior have to do with CRT?

  5. HAHAHAHAHA

    Let me know when Jews stop voting for the Democrat oppressors. Until then?

    “Good and hard”, baby, good and hard

    1. Somebody got lost on the way to Stormfront…

      1. Let me know when Stormfront starts supporting Israel against its terrorist enemies.

        For the most part, and from what I can tell from the outside looking in, the Democrat voting “Jews” don’t actually appear to be religiously believing Jews. For them it’s a “culture”. And, even better, they get to be “victims”, despite being white, credentialed, and financially well off

        So ye3s, I laugh at them. They deserve it.

        Look up Mencken’s comment about democracy. You can clearly use the education..

        1. Truly the Jews have never had such a friend as you.

          1. Define “the Jews” without being a racist schmuck.

            Observant Jews are a very different bunch of people…

            1. Keep opening your mouth wider, Mr Ed. You’ll be able to fit both feet in.

              1. Come the implosion, I’ll survive — and you likely won’t.

                1. What a joke you are Mr Ed.

        2. You’re right about Jews who actually practice their religion versus those that don’t.

          The latter vote straight D even though they support anti-Semitism. Jews in name only I guess.

      2. Mencken even sounds like a good Nazi.

        But my favorite Mencken quote is:
        “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

        Let’s just say I’m very normal.

    2. Don’t complain to much. I think that the antisemitism charge from Jewish Democrats inside the leftist tent keeps the choke collar on the fringe left from going to Jacobin on other ethnic/racial/religious groups.

      1. Why should I want to keep the Democrat Party’s Jacobins from launching more circular firing squads?

  6. This is the future Keith Whittington wants.

    1. You’re either with us or against us is Bob’s raison d’etre in life.

      1. Considering how politics works in a two party system, there is a natural dichotomy that forms regardless of any intent to remain neutral.

        1. That’s just your extremism talking again, and it’s a never ending hole of quicksand. Whittington opposes much of CRT, but if he doesn’t oppose as much or the same means of combating it as Bob then he must want CRT to win is how silly ideologues think.

          1. My extremism? It’s strange when I can open the window and point outside to an empirical reality of a bitterly divided country and you say that’s just a matter of my inward perception. Are you going to tell me to free my mind next?

            Politics is a zero sum game. Every tax dollar that goes to X somebody would prefer to go to Y, and further, how much and who to tax is just as big of a divisive issue.

            Show me your budget, and I’ll show you your priorities.

            1. Sure kalak, this is why Switzerland was equally our enemy as Germany in WWII.

              1. We bombed them…

            2. Politics is not zero-sum. This is the dangerous mindset that both parties have found useful to cultivate by emphasizing victimhood. And fear (on the right) or envy (on the left).

              The implication is that the other side must lose in order for you to get what you deserve. And that serves as an open-ended justification for hurting your political opponents. It’s the exact reason this country is so divided.

              As long as you think politics is zero sum, you’re a dangerous ideologue… left or right.

  7. CRT is taught by grifters and it’s essentially teaching racism, couched in a way to make you think you’re the problem. Fortunately there are enough people willing to fight it. The left is a violent mob of course and they never fail to show their true colors.

  8. “Most lawyers, alas, are too afraid of being called racist to object. I’m not. The woke mob called me a Nazi and I survived.”

    Wow, so brave. Josh survived the harrowing experience of walking down a hallway while as many as two dozen teenagers stood around and said mean things about him. Thank you for your service.

    1. …two dozen teenagers…

      What do you think was the average age of Brownshirts?
      What do you think is the average age of Antifa “activists”?

  9. I suspect one employer who I do some work for that made a “diversity” and “inclusion” propaganda session mandatory (so basically a condition of employment) which featured heavily the concept that all white people are racist and men oppress all women the main source of the program is engaged in pre-complaint settlement negotiations.

    I got a notice of potential class action lawsuit in the mail two weeks ago and am pretty sure I know the employee who contacted the law firm. I highly doubt the company wants it to get out that they conducted such an invasive program on race so they are looking to privately settle. And I’m sure the law firm is taking full advantage of their preferred procedural posture.

    I didn’t respond to the letter and don’t think I will, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a decent amount of interest. People were livid after the event and HR said they were “flooded” with formal and informal complaints.

    For those lawyers on this board, you might want to brush up on your non-discrimination law. Content that is perfectly acceptable in an educational environment, especially protected by academic freedom or even being taught in K-12, can run afoul of discrimination law in an employment context. I anticipate we will see more of these in the future.

    1. All diversity training produces a hostile work or school envirnment. Any employer daring to require one, should be sued into oblivion. All mine know that. I have never been required to attend. After the Floyd riots, one scheduled a training. I sent my email, and it was cancelled. That was likely upon advice of counsel.

  10. Query: What is the statute of limitations on atrocities done to ancestors? 80 Years (Holocaust)? 160 Years (Slavery)? 1000 Years (Norman Conquest)? 2000 Years (Crucifixion of Christ by Romans and Jewish people?)

    I need to know when people stop being victims and start being oppressors …

    1. Italy needs to pay reparations for Celtic slavery to France!

      Jews will use the Holocaust for all time (despite things like he Armenian Genocide of Christians by Mohammedian Turks) because it is justification for the state of Israel. So as long as Israel exists, you’ll hear about the Holocaust.

      As for slavery, the Crusades, Jihad, etc….you’ll hear victimhood stories about them as long as somebody’s trying to extract some resources or policy changes from someone else based on it.

      1. [The Holocaust] is justification for the state of Israel.

        No. Learn your history:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

    2. People from Africa invaded Europe and caused the genocide of the native European population. They were so effective that people of European ancestry to this day are in fact majority African ancestry.

      There can never be enough reparations for this.

      1. Stop smoking bad weed

      2. The subject was covered in that 1993 Tarentino movie.

        Serch YouTube, True Romance and Eggplant. Fascinating review of that history.

  11. The Confederates were, of courrse, America’s first oppressed minority. They developed the narrative and drama of victimhood which enables them to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat and perpetuate their society for a hundred years after it had supposedly been defeated.

    But Hitler also specialized in the drama of victimhood. The fact that he looked like Charlie Chaplin wasn’t a coincidence – he projected a sympathetic chaaracter. He projected the Germans as having been woefully and unfairly oppressed by the victorious Allied powers. Not to mention the Jews.

    The narrative of the oppressed minority has been at the heart of many of the cruelest regimes of the 20th century. If you are oppressed by others, you don’t have to observe basic morality towards them. You can regard your oppressors as simply objects.

    People like MLK advocated changing the narrative, not simply replacing the characters but continuing the same story. They advocated an uncomfortable integration, not just replacing segregation’s comfortable white-controlled safe spaces for white people with comfortable black-controlled safe spaces for black people.

    The new boss wasn’t supposed to be the same as the old boss.

    1. Just to nitpick a point…do you think the indemnities and payments, fixed at the pre-war gold standard, was NOT to harsh on the Germans, and thus didn’t lead to WWII?

      The interwar German victimhood narrative was kinda just an expression of what most people, even Keynes, recognized as being too harsh for a war in which everyone was to blame.

      1. I tend to think hyperinflation and the bolshevik revolutions in Berlin and Bavaria did a good job making the Germans a bit paranoid about communists and bankers.

    2. BRAVO! ReaderY — excellent points!

    3. “He projected the Germans as having been woefully and unfairly oppressed by the victorious Allied powers. Not to mention the Jews.”

      Well then what made the Weimar Republic a failed state then? I doubt it was the Jews. It was either that liberal democracies don’t work, or they had onerous conditions imposed upon them that never gave a liberal democracy a chance.

  12. That said, things like people assuming that the black woman in the room is there to serve the coffee happen, and can’t just be wished away by wishful thinking.

    These types of “educational” sessions can be terribly constructed, over-ideologized, and weaponized. But the existence of terribly constructed, over-ideologized, and weaponized programs doesn’t detract from the fact that real people have real problems.

    The commenters asserting that no problems exist today and people are simply whining about what happened to distant ancestors are just as off the mark as the people who assert that all Jews are oppressors and all Black people victims.

    1. If we got really brave, we’d ask who owned the ships that ran the slave trade.

    2. “That said, things like people assuming that the black woman in the room is there to serve the coffee happen, and can’t just be wished away by wishful thinking.”

      Seriously? Your big “victimization” was that someone assumed you have a “lesser” job than you actually have?

      Let’s call up some of the Tuskegee Airmen and let them know that their suffering was nothing compared to what black women go through today!

      News flash: America is an intensely racist and sexist country. The racism and sexism are now called “Affirmative Action” or “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”, and the targets of the racism and sexism are different.

      But the costs in lost jobs, lost promotions, and lost opportunities, as well as the bigoted stereotypes (Harvard thinks that Asian all have bad personalities, and the Federal District Court and Appeals Court both agree) are just as real.

      “Someone asked me to get him coffee” vs “I didn’t get the job / promotion / into the school of my choice”
      because I have the wrong skin color

      If you’re going to seriously try to tell us the 1st one’s worse, I’m going to tell you to FOAD

      1. News flash: the same stereotyping that assumes the black woman is there to serve coffee can also be intertwined with others and lead to losing promotions, job offers, loans, etc. ‘CRT’ is basically just studying how that kind of thing happens.

        1. Maybe. But its conclusions regarding “how” are unsupportable by evidence.

          1. That’s of course not true.

        2. ‘CRT’ is basically just racism. The only difference between it and the racism I rejected when I was 12 years old is the color of the skin.

          Racism is evil. In ALL its forms. You don’t solve discrimination by just discriminating against a different person. You solve it by not discriminating against anyone.

        3. Oh, bullshit

          CRT is about how everyone MUST be judged based on their skin color, all the time

          1. Greg J is a very educated person who has watched much Fox News.

            1. David Nieporent is a TDS afflicted moron who lives in a world of lies

              Starting with the lie that anyone who understands CRT must have got it form Fox News. Nope, loser. I don’t ever watch it, and I haven’t learned anything about CRT from it.

              I’ve learned abotu CRT from the people pushing CRT. Who are, one and all, inveterate racist pigs

        4. 1: I note you completely ignore the widespread anti-Asian bigotry of the CRT supporting Left. So, you agree it’s there, you just don’t care / support it

          2: The “stereotyping that assumes the black woman is there to serve coffee” leads one to believe that any black woman who one meets who is NOT the one serving coffee is an “exceptional black woman”.

          Which, contrary to your claim, means it leads to GETTING “promotions, job offers, loans, etc.” Because “clearly this person is exceptional to have gotten this far”

          So, as usual, you are bigoted and full of sh!t

          1. Yea Asians don’t count. Here is the victim pyramid. Evreyone else is considered an oppressor:
            1) Blacks
            2) Muslim
            3) LGBT
            4) Hispanic
            5) Women

            You lose your victim card if you even slightly right of center

    3. What are you doing here with your thoughtful nuance?

      1. It is thoughtless vapidity, not nuance. The comment would not really have to be changed to substitute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident for an imagined coffee incident.

    4. commenters asserting that no problems exist today

      Are those the commenters in your head?

      Sub-optimal race based actions most certainly exist today. As do many sub-optimal cross-group interactions. The primary argument is that current DEI training is an absolutely terrible way to seek to move past it.

      1. The company I work for has had quite a bit of mandatory diversity and inclusion training over the last couple years. The quality has varied. Some was pretty bad, borderline offensive. But much of it has been good. It is possible.

      2. The primary argument is that current DEI training is an absolutely terrible way to seek to move past it.

        See, people, this is the sort of the thing reasonable people say, rather than ranting and raving about something they know nothing about (“CRT”). (Note: I am not being sarcastic here.) Current DEI training is a fad led by grifters.

    5. “things like people assuming that the black woman in the room is there to serve the coffee “

      And all this crap does is serve to reinforce the belief that the *only* thing that the Black woman is qualified for is to serve said coffee.

  13. If your against oppression Olympics, don’t participate.

  14. This sort of dichotomy is textbook CRT. Everyone must be separated based on their level of victimhood.

    I see Josh hasn’t bothered to read up on CRT either.

    1. Maybe Stanford didn’t read up on it either.

      1. Whatever Stanford is doing isn’t CRT.

        But Josh labels it as such nevertheless. Because he’s a hack.

    2. CRT sucks. Burn the texbook

  15. ” Most lawyers, alas, are too afraid of being called racist to object. I’m not. ”

    Indeed, I sense you rather like it.

  16. If any of thought had doubts about the idiocy of critical racist theory, this leaves no doubt. Defund blm and antifa!

  17. “the DEI program’s racially segregated ‘whiteness accountability’ affinity group”

    OK, stop right there. I think we’ve found our problem.

    If you don’t think it’s a problem, imagine a “blackness accountability” group.

  18. “the oppression pyramid”

    (((someone))) has to provide the slave labor to build the Pyramids.

    1. The pyramids were built with free labor, not slaves. Thus no Jews.

      1. Yes, I know, don’t step on the joke.

  19. There’s a great book about some Chinese parents who sued the Mississippi public schools in the 1920s basically because they were assigned to the black public schools instead of to the white ones.

    https://amzn.to/3zI52Ya

  20. Karma sucks I guess. I have been against any kind of racial quota’s my entire life. You can’t fix a sunk cost by discriminating against individuals who had nothing to do or personally were enriched by something that occurred before they were born. And applying “disparate impact” bs across the board to every “tribe” would certainly bring up some interesting and not very comfortable questions on why some groups seem to be overrepresented in various occupations. As an Italian American my grandparents faced discrimination and later as their grandson was told at Xerox that I couldn’t get promoted any higher because I was “white.” I’ve also found most of the folks I have debated on this topic who hold the other side are Jewish (at my private eastern research university I attended and at work and on line)…eventually cultural marxism turns on every group…first it was the WASP’s, then Germans, then Irish, then Italians and now…

    1. Well they don’t apply quotas across the board. They cherry pick disparate outcomes that disadvantage blacks. Lets just call it like it is . That is the only goal.

  21. Hi, Josh. When that student called you a Jew oppressir, did you say, “You are an agent of the Chinese Commie Party. You should be arrested, tried, and sent to re-education camp?”

  22. I’m shocked that something called an “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Program” would basically suck hard.

    SHOCKED!

  23. Diversity is meaningless. Excellence is many times completely non-diverse.

    The best NBA teams are not diverse. They are predominantly black. No one pines for AA roster spots for whites or Asians.

    The best NHL teams a predominantly white. During February the NHL non-stop virtue signaled about how inclusive they are and how they really need more black players. They don’t.

    Sports is a business and mimics life. So no “Sports is different” retorts because it’s not.

    But how in the world do the Japanese compete in business? They do pretty well at it actually. They are definitely not diverse.

    Would they better off by injecting blacks into their business? Nope! Diversity is meaningless

Please to post comments